"see monster" Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed

[Matty541]

I’m new to studying the common law and quite ignorant towards this “freeman on the land” stuff, as in I don’t really know where to start looking. I came across Veronica’s book recently, which I have found useful in my research.

I eased past the first two chapters to find myself stuck at the third. I understand that in law language used can be changed, or re-defined to suit a specific piece of legislation or court ruling. They could make; black mean white, red mean blue and so on. The principle of a substitute of phraseology.

But it was at page twenty four of Veronica’s book which I cannot get past.

i'm reliably informed that if you look up 'Human Being' the 4th Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, it says: "See 'monster'

Now, I am scrolling through Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition and I can’t for the life of me find what the author is referring to, I am clueless to the authors source because there is none. The “see monster” is rather confusing. Am I just being really stupid here and completely missing the reference and authors meaning.

Also,
Question: Is the definition of Legalese essentially the same as a substitute of phraseology?

Just some random link i found with Veronicas book in PDF format
http://www.yourstrawman.com/VeronicaChapman.pdf

[iamani]

Hi Matty541

Welcome to the forum.

You have stumbled across one of the best examples of linguistrickery in a book known for such.

Veronica is correct, but perhaps the edition quoted is wrong. Or they may have removed it from the online version... ? i know because i have seen it. i think also that Romley has shown the reference in one of his YT vids.

So you look up 'human being' and it does say 'see monster'. So we look up 'monster' in same dictionary and it says 'a fiction'. The inference drawn is that a 'human being' is 'a fiction' - which is true as far as it goes but in accepting that at face value is... a trick.

We tend to focus on 'monster' in the definition of 'human being' but there are two words in that definition - 'see' and 'monster'.

'See monster' = a fiction of the Holy See.

If you want a head-start in your studies then learn about 'fictions'.

Also i believe the word 'legalese' to be a corruption of the 'language de l'Egglise' which is a 'language of the church'.

Cheers!

[Matty541]

Hello iamani
Thank you for your greetings and response.

I’m not sure if I like the sound of this “linguistrickery”, i have not been able to get further into the book having tripped over this first hurdle.
Surely Veronica wouldn’t have published the book if she had thoroughly checked if all her sources were correct?

And surely I do not see them removing such reference from the online version of Black’s fourth Edition, I have seen various copies posted online, so maybe it would be worth my while checking them for differences. Although, I do fail to see why the publishers would do this.

Question: Have you seen this reference in Black’s fourth Edition? If it is possible, could you post the actual quote from it, in its entirety? I would really appreciate it and you would be helping a fellow truth seeker.

Question: what dictionary would you recommend looking up the word “Human Being” and “fictions”

Also, is this “Romley” fellow an Australian? because I have put this name into youtube search and it appears as though this might be the guy.
Anyway as I said, I am a true noob when it comes to this stuff, so I try avoiding other peoples material, such as youtube videos, as I do not know enough to know if the information featured is indeed correct. I find it easier going to the source, i.e. their own writings and checking sources that way.

And wow dude, you have just literally opened up another rabbit hole for me to delve into the meaning of ‘see monster’ being a fiction of the Holy See – could you please send me your reading list, and where this actually comes from. I need to get my head around this.

Thank you for getting back to me.

I thought my post would go unnoticed

[iamani]

Hi Matty541

Could it be... I wonder...

Confuse-us say: "Not wise lance boil with katana... "

http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/human.htm

From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster' . From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'

If you type 'human being see monster' into search engine you'll find lots of stuff, the above being one of them. Turns out it's Ballantynes not Black's. The Lawdictionary uses Black's 2nd - look up 'monster' to give you more ideas.

Not everyone has access to source, they're only human.

Dictionaries have entries 'edited' all the time. Some entries are added, some changed and some removed with every new edition. The definition quoted above is from the 1948 edition, is it in the latest edition... ? Even easier to do it on line. Why do it? Words are weapons, sharper than knives... language is a silent weapon for a quiet war. Oh, and the book I referred to as linguistrickery is Black's, not V.'s. The former being not so well-intentioned' as the latter, which you should read 2 or 3 times. Spotting mistakes helps grow discernment, and i'm sure you can get a refund for pointing them out...

Romley has exposed the importance of language. There is nothing more devastating to good law than un-certainty of language. When you understand that you are not a noob.

Re: see monster being a fiction of the Holy See - you won't find that as it is merely my opinion based on research.

Good luck with yours, btw. Looks like you got a fair way to go.

Cheers!